Sounds to me that Cain is going to bail. As for the accusation, who knows. It seems somewhat contrived to me, but it's also more convincing than the sexual harassment claims. There is evidence he at quite a bit of contact with her...dozens of phone calls, etc. The news channel that broke the story actually called is private number (provided by the accuser) and he responded to their voicemail. It's not definitive proof of anything, but as I said...more credible than the last accusations.

As I said, I've never been a Cain supporter anyway. He's got some attractive qualities, but I'd prefer someone with more experience in politics and more depth of knowledge on foreign affairs.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Sounds to me that Cain is going to bail. As for the accusation, who knows. It seems somewhat contrived to me, but it's also more convincing than the sexual harassment claims. There is evidence he at quite a bit of contact with her...dozens of phone calls, etc. The news channel that broke the story actually called is private number (provided by the accuser) and he responded to their voicemail. It's not definitive proof of anything, but as I said...more credible than the last accusations.

As I said, I've never been a Cain supporter anyway. He's got some attractive qualities, but I'd prefer someone with more experience in politics and more depth of knowledge on foreign affairs.

It's about much more than Cain though SDW. This is about how the media takes a side and also about how they try to pick the Republican candidate for the party rather than letting the voters do it. If you weren't going to vote for him, that is completely different than can't vote for him because false allegations destroyed his campaign before the first ballot is cast in the first primary.

Also don't forget, per the media narratives, Republicans have no women or minority candidates. So thus they are sexist and racist. It doesn't matter if the media runs off said candidates using the old race baiting and sexist ploys in existence. All that matters is that Republicans are rich, white old guys and every one else is a Democrat and anything that threatens that narrative, they will personally destroy.

In the Obama thread it shows why they will go to such lengths, because Democrats have no other way of winning. Their racism, anticapitalism, and tribalism only works if the media hides all contradictory evidence or worse still, destroys it.

It's about much more than Cain though SDW. This is about how the media takes a side and also about how they try to pick the Republican candidate for the party rather than letting the voters do it. If you weren't going to vote for him, that is completely different than can't vote for him because false allegations destroyed his campaign before the first ballot is cast in the first primary.

Good point. I'd add that the Obama-Mania media was deathly afraid of facing Herman Cain.

Quote:

Also don't forget, per the media narratives, Republicans have no women or minority candidates. So thus they are sexist and racist. It doesn't matter if the media runs off said candidates using the old race baiting and sexist ploys in existence. All that matters is that Republicans are rich, white old guys and every one else is a Democrat and anything that threatens that narrative, they will personally destroy.

Yes, that's a given.

Quote:

In the Obama thread it shows why they will go to such lengths, because Democrats have no other way of winning. Their racism, anticapitalism, and tribalism only works if the media hides all contradictory evidence or worse still, destroys it.

Agreed. The latest narrative is that Romney is a flopper and has no "core." Funny enough, Romney has been running around defending his Mass. healthcare plan, not moving away from it. He continues to defend it even though it would be politically advantageous to do otherwise. The other narrative--one that has made it onto FNC and the conservative media--is that he wanted his program to be national--and it was the "model" for Obamacare. That's not true, either. He thought states would do well to adopt certain provisions. He has never supported it as a federal model.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Good point. I'd add that the Obama-Mania media was deathly afraid of facing Herman Cain.

Yes, that's a given.

Agreed. The latest narrative is that Romney is a flopper and has no "core." Funny enough, Romney has been running around defending his Mass. healthcare plan, not moving away from it. He continues to defend it even though it would be politically advantageous to do otherwise. The other narrative--one that has made it onto FNC and the conservative media--is that he wanted his program to be national--and it was the "model" for Obamacare. That's not true, either. He thought states would do well to adopt certain provisions. He has never supported it as a federal model.

Romney supports a measure that would make saving a woman's life murder in some cases. No Democrat or socially responsible Republican will vote for him. He is unelectable.

Romney supports a measure that would make saving a woman's life murder in some cases. No Democrat or socially responsible Republican will vote for him. He is unelectable.

Stop thinking in empty platitudes.

You can save a woman by murdering your neighbor and stealing her liver. If you support the law that would convict the person that kills her and sends them to prison for life then you support a measure that would make saving a woman's life murder in some cases.

You can save a woman by murdering your neighbor and stealing her liver. If you support the law that would convict the person that kills her and sends them to prison for life then you support a measure that would make saving a woman's life murder in some cases.

And well... Apparently he's flipped his flop again, but he told Mike Huckabee that he would "absolutely" support a personhood amendment that would make abortion convictable murder. Any abortion. Including an abortion that would save a woman's life. Such as the one he tried to risk the death of all those years ago.

And well... Apparently he's flipped his flop again, but he told Mike Huckabee that he would "absolutely" support a personhood amendment that would make abortion convictable murder. Any abortion. Including an abortion that would save a woman's life. Such as the one he tried to risk the death of all those years ago.

How does the link in any form or fashion support what you type below it?

Below it, I was talking about this. The first link clearly illustrates his (non-politically motivated) position on the sanctity of a woman's life.

I didn't supply the second link the first time because I knew from years of experience that you would simply attack the source. But Romney's flip flopping between a deadly hard line stance against all abortion and his wavering statements that exceptions could be made should be common knowledge. Which is it, Mitt?

Below it, I was talking about this. The first link clearly illustrates his (non-politically motivated) position on the sanctity of a woman's life.

I didn't supply the second link the first time because I knew from years of experience that you would simply attack the source. But Romney's flip flopping between a deadly hard line stance against all abortion and his wavering statements that exceptions could be made should be common knowledge. Which is it, Mitt?

Mike Huckabee: "Was there any way that you could have blocked [Romney's health care plan paying for abortion] administratively or through forcing the legislature to have created enabling legislation before it went into effect?"

Romney: "This was something which existed exactly even before our bill was passed. They said people who are receiving care in that was in any way subsidized by government had the right to get abortion as part of that care. And they said that was constitutionally required. So the only way to we could have changed that would be to carry out a constitutional amendment to block the Supreme Court's decision."

Mike Huckabee: "Would you have supported the constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception?"

Mitt Romney: "Absolutely."

Romney is obviously not a model of clarity and consistency on the question of abortion. But I'm also not sure the DNC can support the claim that he supports the Mississippi law or others like it, given that "personhood" wasn't really the topic here. The Mississippi proposal would have established that "the term person or persons shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." It's a new push, one that goes beyond the older battles over when life begins, which is why it's produced such fireworks.

Romney's current position? He supports, per spokeswoman Gail Gitcho, "a Human Life Amendment that overturns Roe vs. Wade and sends the issue back to the states" which sounds like something short of a federal abortion ban.

"Mitt Romney is pro-life, and as he has said previously, he is supportive of efforts to ensure recognition that life begins at conception. He believes these matters should be left up to states to decide," she said.

When Politico, the source that originated all the Cain allegations no matter how nefarious the source, still can't zing Romney on this, then it is seriously questionable. It's clear he is talking about why the health care bill he signed as governor had to cover abortion procedures and what would need to happen at the federal level to allow changes.

Sounds to me that Cain is going to bail. As for the accusation, who knows. It seems somewhat contrived to me, but it's also more convincing than the sexual harassment claims. There is evidence he at quite a bit of contact with her...dozens of phone calls, etc. The news channel that broke the story actually called is private number (provided by the accuser) and he responded to their voicemail. It's not definitive proof of anything, but as I said...more credible than the last accusations.

As I said, I've never been a Cain supporter anyway. He's got some attractive qualities, but I'd prefer someone with more experience in politics and more depth of knowledge on foreign affairs.

Do you think these women were plants from the Liberal Party? This is getting to be more like a soap opera each day I read and see.The proof will be if Cain sticks in there and does not quit.

Do you think these women were plants from the Liberal Party? This is getting to be more like a soap opera each day I read and see.The proof will be if Cain sticks in there and does not quit.

It doesn't matter to what party they belong. What matters is the patterns of their behavior. Those patterns are clear. In almost every instance they have alleged harassment or taken matters to court multiple times. Most have a single or multiple bankruptcies. All who have come forward have been shown to be in a very precarious financial position with at least two being shown currently being evicted from their housing.

When you see the same pattern, women who have been irresponsible for multiple decades, who have filed bankruptcies or taken a large payout in the past from single or multiple employers related to claims of harassment and see them making claims right now when they are in the grips of extreme financial problems, it isn't hard to put together what is happening.

I'm surprised by the support of Herman Cain. I can't stand that man, but at least I know there aren't as many bigots as I thought. Well, I guess they are another kind since they like him and are still suporting him despite the allegations.

Sounds to me that Cain is going to bail. As for the accusation, who knows. It seems somewhat contrived to me, but it's also more convincing than the sexual harassment claims. There is evidence he at quite a bit of contact with her...dozens of phone calls, etc. The news channel that broke the story actually called is private number (provided by the accuser) and he responded to their voicemail. It's not definitive proof of anything, but as I said...more credible than the last accusations.

As I said, I've never been a Cain supporter anyway. He's got some attractive qualities, but I'd prefer someone with more experience in politics and more depth of knowledge on foreign affairs.

Cain bailed today as to much problems with his sex life was destroying him and his family. GOD showed him the way he said which to me is a cop out to begin with. He was guilty as sin!

We have a sad state of affairs when The Onion is better off reporting the actual news.

Why are these flubs on proof of stupidity in Republicans? When Obama mistakes 10 for thousands, when he declares 57 states, when he wants to discuss speaking Austrian, why is he still a brilliant man in your eyes? Explain why this is doubly so when the man has been such a failure as a president.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox

Cain bailed today as to much problems with his sex life was destroying him and his family. GOD showed him the way he said which to me is a cop out to begin with. He was guilty as sin!

Guilty as sin? When is the last time you did something with someone for 13 years marvfox and the only proof they could offer of it was you know the person's phone number and it was accepted as fact?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

When Barack Obama made that comment about "guns and God" and Fox News and the right wing blogs went mad.

People get upset when you point a finger at them instead of at yourself for your own flaws. The people weren't voting for him in the primary and it wasn't because as almost everyone knows now (but they of course knew then) that he was an empty shell of a man who cannot lead. The fault wasn't with the candidate but the voters who were "bitter" and "clinging to guns".

Quote:

Was that "a lynching"? Was Barack Obama "lynched" then?

No, of course not.

Barack Obama is a black Democrat.

Try and suggest that people hate him because of his race?

Barack Obama has not at all been put through the sort of rumors and innuendo that any Republican candidate has been put through. The issue of course is that any candidate who has a chance of ripping away a section of the Democratic coalition, made up of increasingly of single women and certain minority groups, means that the candidate must be destroyed because once that group fractures the Democrats have no chance of winning.

Quote:

WARM UP THE WHINEJETS. STOP PLAYING THE RACE CARD.

Herman Cain is a married presidential candidate who had an affair and paid women to settle sexual harassment charges.

And this isn't news. This is a LYNCHING.

An allegation is the same as a fact now in your view? Do you know in the last election two men named Larry Sinclair and Donald Young claimed to have had affairs with Barack Obama. At least one of them claimed to have done many illegal drugs with him.

Its not as if anyone ever suggested that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim with close terrorist connections who hates white people and whose American birth certificate is a fraud or anything.

YOU HAVE NO SHAME.

Republicans. You are funny.

You're welcome to show where he had to defend himself agains those claims being out to him by ABC, NBC, CNN, etc. Some grandpa circulating an email among his retiree friends isn't the same thing as the major media.

Right, Mumbo, because Democrats just aren't racist. Harry Reid never said that Obama didn't speak with a negro accent unless he wanted to. Joe Biden never said that you can't walk into a 7-11 without an Indian accent, or that Obama was the first mainstream black candidate, who was "clean and articulate." Democrats haven't played the race card for the last 30 years, either. They don't portray conservatives as racists, or run ads that say if Republicans are elected, black churches will burn. Every time a back conservative comes into the spotlight, they run off to the media and political elite and ask "is it OK to be racist for a bit? Cool? Thanks...great."

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

That is is correct. I'm not. For one thing, there are legitimate questions about Obama's background re: his religion. I never heard him called a "terrorist" or "white hating." That said, many of his past statements and associations (his black liberation theology, for example) call his position on racial issues into question. Ditto on his judgement with respect to Bill Ayres.

Quote:

It is only a 'lynching' when a black Republican is found out for having an affair.

You people deserve to win. You'll say anything to make it happen, and that's all politics is.

I suppose comments like those make it easier to post here for you. The reality is that I titled the thread as I did because Herman Cain himself predicted months ago that he would be subject to "a high tech lynching." Secondly, there is no question that Democrat politicians fear Cain because of his race, at least in part. He represented a huge threat to Obama, because he was viewed by many to be the anti-Obama: conservative, business-trained, and an authentic black southerner (not my term). Finally, it's clear that Democratic politicians and their media allies are not any better with regards to race than are Republicans. In fact, they are likely worse, because they openly tolerate racism so long as it is within their own ranks. If Harry Reid was a Republican, he'd have been run out of town. But Trent Lott says something nice at Strom Thurmond's birthday party, and suddenly he's the subject of forensic audit of his background, and then...run out of town. Democrats constantly place the race card, and you have the audacity to tell me that "you people" will say anything to win. Get real.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

It is only a 'lynching' when a black Republican is found out for having an affair.

You people deserve to win. You'll say anything to make it happen, and that's all politics is.

Please post examples of news stories from CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. calling Obama a Muslim, white-hating terrorists with a fake birth certificate. You can't. In fact all you can find are a bunch of stories completely defending the man even when similar scandals, aka Tony Rezko, Reverend White, etc SHOULD have taken down his campaign during the primary.
Here's how the media lynches Barack Obama...

A nice verbal gaffe that if he were a Republican would show he's so stupid he doesn't even know his own religion. Instead George S. just feeds him back what he is supposed to say. It isn't a big deal, it isn't a problem and of course it isn't something to pounce on at all.

Make it Rick Perry slipping for five seconds or Herman Cain with a verbal gaffe and of course they are unfit to be president.

You've clearly got to be trolling at this point. The media didn't even pursue the affair of John Edwards where he had a child out of wedlock, paid the woman out of his campaign funds and did so while his wife was dying of cancer. They finally mentioned it when the National Enquirer caught him in the hotel and room meeting her after the child was born. Their excuse then was that the former VP choice of John Kerry at that point was no longer a major candidate. In other words "We ignored it until he lost and then we still didn't report on it until it got embarrassing."

Finally what you'll continue to willfully ignore no matter how many times it is mentioned is that grandpa sending out an email or even people posting on these forums is not the same thing as the media using an entire network and having them say the same thing.

When a black Republican pays women out of court to settle sexual harassment claims, that isn't news, it's lynching.

Compare those allegations to what Edwards did. Tell me they are the same.

Quote:

When a black Democrat gets called a white-hating Muslim with terrorist connections and a foreign birth certificate, that's PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT, because he is a Democrat c***

1. No one called him white-hating.
2. He referred to his "Muslim faith" in a national interview. He attended a Muslim school as as a young boy. And guess what...even Rush Limbaugh wasn't out there calling him a Muslim.
3. The birth certificate issue was legitimate, especially given his background. He could have easily silenced all critics by releasing it immediately.
4. He did have terrorist connections. That is a fact.

Quote:

We understand. You have made it very clear.

Good luck with the election.

(And with your dignity.)

Somehow I'm pretty confident my dignity will stand up when compared with the leadership of the Democratic party.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

When a black Republican pays women out of court to settle sexual harassment claims, that isn't news, it's lynching.

He didn't pay them. He wasn't a party to the lawsuit. He didn't settle with them. He wasn't involved.

This means you are now lying to try to make your point.

Quote:

When a black Democrat gets called a white-hating Muslim with terrorist connections and a foreign birth certificate, that's PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT, because he is a Democrat cunt.

We understand. You have made it very clear.

This means you are now trolling because clearly your point has lost.

Quote:

Good luck with the election.

(And with your dignity.)

Luck won't be necessary. The lies of the left are bankrupt around the world and occupying places or screaming about percents won't change that fact. As for dignity, I've got plenty and would never need to resort to ignoring the fact that grandpa with his email address and say... the entire BBC aren't the same thing. Some of us don't have the dignity to register that point though and thus will repeat lies and continue trolling.

The Republican candidate Herman Cain is guilty of these allegations of sexual misconduct.

You are lying. You are a liar, trumptman.

You, on the other hand, are guilty of playing your part in the lynching of Barack Obama.

Why did you do this?

Why did you help to lynch Barack Obama by defending the 'birthers'?

Why did you help to lynch Barack Obama, trumptman?

I think that SDW, et al, have such low tolerances for cognitive dissonance that they have adapted absurdly unhealthy levels of compartmentalization. Obama has been objectively treated like shit by the right wing from the moment he took office. None of the "support your president" mantra is to be found like it was during the Bush administration.

Here's the thing...I'm relatively sure that SDW, et al, genuinely believe what they say. That's the truly scary part. When logic, reason, and the rules of evidence get tossed out the window...well, all bets are off.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Trumptman: “I know I said there was something suspicious about Obama’s birth certificate and Obama’s proximity to Bill Ayers. And that the guy is basically a Marxist. And I know I was silent when people argued he hated white people.

But those were all perfectly legitimate concerns backed up with plentiful evidence.

This is quite different.

All Obama’s done is admit to giving money to a woman who claims they were having a thirteen-year affair, apologised to his wife and dropped out of his campaign.

All this fuss… is horrible to me. It’s like they want to beat Obama to death and hang him from a tree.”

You see, I'm imagining what trumptman would be saying if Barack Obama had been caught giving monthly cash payments to a woman who claimed they'd been having a thirteen-year affair.

You seem to have a magical source of news that no one else has because you keep declaring things no news organization has reported.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

"He may be a Democrat, but fair's fair. This woman seems to be a Republican plant."

"I think these allegations are spurious."

"That's the president. Don't lynch him."

"Why are you lynching the president?"

"The press have a noose, and they're chasing Barack Obama to string him up from a tree by his neck, like they used to do to innocent black men in the south, and this is terribly unfair."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

Trumptman: I know I said there was something suspicious about Obamas birth certificate and Obamas proximity to Bill Ayers. And that the guy is basically a Marxist. And I know I was silent when people argued he hated white people.

But those were all perfectly legitimate concerns backed up with plentiful evidence.

This is quite different.

All Obamas done is admit to giving money to a woman who claims they were having a thirteen-year affair, apologised to his wife and dropped out of his campaign.

All this fuss is horrible to me. Its like they want to beat Obama to death and hang him from a tree.

The board has a quote function but why use that when you can paraphrase using quotation marks and just make stuff up.

You seem to have a magical source of news that no one else has because you keep declaring things no news organization has reported.

Ah, dear Daily Mail.

Quote:

'One time after we had sex, I cried. He said, "Maybe we shouldn’t do this for a while." So maybe he did have a heart - or half a heart. But I knew I needed his financial help.'

She added: 'When he first started, it was pretty sporadic, but the last 2 1/2 years, there was consistent financial help every month... But I think every time he had sex with me, he was getting a lot more than I was getting.'

There isn't a big enough to encompass the depth of contempt I have for you and your sporadic felicity to evidence, trumptman.

I think that SDW, et al, have such low tolerances for cognitive dissonance that they have adapted absurdly unhealthy levels of compartmentalization. Obama has been objectively treated like shit by the right wing from the moment he took office. None of the "support your president" mantra is to be found like it was during the Bush administration.

Here's the thing...I'm relatively sure that SDW, et al, genuinely believe what they say. That's the truly scary part. When logic, reason, and the rules of evidence get tossed out the window...well, all bets are off.

If that's not the stupidest argument you've ever made, I don't know what is. The treatment of this President by the mainstream right has been far better than the treatment Bush received by the mainstream left. Even the most stringent critics of the President focus on his policies and his personal approach to the job (decision making, partisan attacks, public persona/head of state functions). And his background? It is what it is. He was a "community organizer" with no executive skills. He was a member of a church whose pastor embraced Black Liberation theology. He associated with terrorist-turned-professor Bill Ayres. He served one term in the Illinois State Senate and two years in the U.S. Senate. Should all of that be off limits? Should calling the President a "loser" and saying "the war is lost" when we have troops in combat be confused with saying "I think the President is doing a horrible job?"

Moreover, the media refused to do its job when covering Obama's campaign. Any Republican who had associations and a history anything approaching Obama's would have been savaged. Any Republican who gaffed like Obama would have been booed off the national stage. Meanwhile, Obama can be overheard essentially making fun of a foreign leader behind his back, and he gets a pass. Obama can confuse Memorial and Veterans Day. Obama can fail to pronounce Navy "Corpsmen" correctly three times in a single speech. Obama can say he's visited 57 states. Obama can say the police acted stupidly. He can blunder and blather and generally suck at most things he does, and he gets a pass. Got it.

[sarcasm]Right, because there never should have been any question about his birthplace. There was no reason to think that his completely ordinary background and refusal to release the cert for two years MAY have amounted to anything. And let me tell you, SDW was leading the charge, screaming that he wasn't born in this country. It's not like he said he thought Obama WAS born here or anything. [/sarcasm]

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

This hypocrisy also echoes the whole sexism spiel coming from the right wing (and strongly by one particular member of this site) that despite all of the disgusting nasty things Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein et. al. have been called by right wingers, when Damocrats criticize Palin and Bachmann for being batshit crazy, it's because they hate women.